Dreaming of new generation IDE

[bartc]

"Arnaud Delobelle" <arnodel at googlemail.com> wrote in message 
news:m28wb6ypfs.fsf at googlemail.com...
> "Gabriel Genellina" <gagsl-py2 at yahoo.com.ar> writes:
>
>> En Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:22:39 -0300, bartc <bartc at freeuk.com> escribió:
>>> "Steve Holden" <steve at holdenweb.com> wrote in message
>>> news:mailman.1998.1265399766.28905.python-list at python.org...
>>>> Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
>>>>> Robert Kern <robert.kern at gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I prefer Guido's formulation (which, naturally, I can't find a direct
>>>>>> quote for right now): if you expect that a boolean argument is only
>>>>>> going to take *literal* True or False, then it should be split into
>>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>> two functions.
>>>>>
>>>>> So rather than three boolean arguments, would you have eight 
>>>>> functions?
>>>>>
>>>> If there's genuinely a need for that functionality, yes.
>>>
>>> So you want a function such as drawtext(s, bold=true, italic=false,
>>> underline=true) to be split into:
>>>
>>> drawtext(s)
>>> drawtextb(s)
>>> drawtexti(s)
>>> drawtextu(s)
>>> drawtextbi(s)
>>> drawtextbu(s)
>>> drawtextiu(s)
>>> drawtextbiu(s)
>>
>> Note the *literal* part. If you (the programmer) is likely to know the
>> parameter value when writing the code, then the function is actually two
>> separate functions.
>
> Thanks, I understand what Steve Holden meant now.

I've just noticed that 'literal' part. But I think I still disagree.

For a real-world example, it means instead of having a room with a 
light-switch in it, if I *know* I want the light on or off, I should have 
two rooms: one with the light permanently on, and one with it permanently 
off, and just walk into the right one.

-- 
Bartc